Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 24






Starbucks 25, San Francisco 8, Antonini 7, Us 5, Sugaya 4, Safeway 3, Moore 2, Hillis 2, Fong 1, Brooks 1, Bruno 1, Mr. Richards 1, Mumsi 1, Ralph Lauren 1, Amy Ellis 1, San Franciscoans 1, America 1, Los Angeles 1, Citibank 1, Wu 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    May 18, 2013
    2:00 - 2:31am PDT  

rents for everybody else. well, if you look at some of these model neighborhoods that have almost no formula retail, i am not sure about the rents, but the prices are through the roof in haze valley and even in north beach. so i mean that it is not necessarily true that formula retail drives it up, sometimes the prices at formula retail places are a lot lower than they are independent. these are broad generalities that i don't think are correct. also the points have been made about the fact that there are a lot of other coffee shops in the area. and therefore. and i am sure that most many of them are very good coffee shops, but some of them are kind of hybrids, there are bars and coffee shops, they are not really quite the same place. and you know, people go to a starbucks because they know what they are going to get. it is going to be neat, clean, and accessible bathrooms and they know the kind of service and they know the staff that they are going to get and they will be well groomed and polite
and i am not going to say that they are not going to happen in independence but they have a model, and that is why they are successful because they have kept true to their standards and the people from other places as was pointed out by i think that it was mr. richards, earlier this is a good place for the new residents to land and then from there, they can move on to other areas, and discover, the other coffee shops. and of course, the new building and the new signage is beautiful, and ginsler is a first class architect and so i think that there may be an independent that might end up at that place or some other business if this were to fail. but i am not sure whether they will be or if they will have the wherewithal or actually fit, the triangles are difficult. we have seen a number of the triangles on market street that have trouble staying in business, a number of them converted to housing now. which is something that will stay in business and one of the other ones is probably going to be before us with another
proposal which a home went out of business there. for some reason it just seems like you need the right kind of fit and i think that this starbucks is probably the right size and the right usage to do that. the present tenant, could be anywhere else, i think that they would be better in a mid block and in the many, many vacantcies that exist in the area where they don't really need that triangle space. in regards to the 20 percent within 300 feet. if it was presented by staff that we voted unanimously, i thought that i voted against it. but i might have voted for it. only because after a long discussion, they assured me that i would have discretion and i would not be forced to oppose a project just because the staff opposed it, i think that this is a bad policy because it is too narrow, 300 feet is a narrow area, you should take in the whole neighborhood commercial district but you may have one block with no formula retail
and you may have one block with a lot of formula retail and you are looking at the concentration for 300 feet is too narrow and even so as was pointed out by projects sponsor, the policy has changed since they began the whole thing. so, and it is only brings them to one percent over what this rule would be. and also, the other big problem with this rule is that it lumps all formula retail together and there is one other coffee shop, but there is a bank, a company and a store, it is not like you are getting a hyper concentration of financial institutions or bars or coffee shops, it is just all formula retail that was thrown together as they have no relationship to each other. so, i think that policy probably should be broadened in its scope and maybe the percentages is too low, it probably should be more like 25 percent. and there is a lot of businesses supporting the
starbucks, i mean, mumsi and a lot of others, more the merchants seem to be more in favor it, not all of them are opposed to it. it seems like the merchants know business and everybodis that pointed out all of the good things that starbucks does and we have their northern california head quarter heres with a lot of employees and there are all treated very well and i think that 1400 employees and 85 percent of which live in san francisco. and so that certainly is a good model and we have heard from the united way and all of the good things that they do but as someone said it is not about all of the good things that they do, it is about this particular site, i think that it is really a great site, 1,000 new housing units in there. their store at 18th and castro is you know, overflowing and there is enough demand that they really need another site. and there are two others, within a mile of this less than a mile, but it is a little bit of a hike.
and it is a block and a half down the hill to get to the safeway or the store that is near the safeway and it is a little bit of a walk to get up to the 18th and castro site. and they are busy, and it means that there is a demand and if you don't like starbucks, then you don't have to go there and if you really want the independence and patronize the independence, but, you know, there has to be competition, if your business is not good enough to survive, it is probably not because of starbucks it is the fact that you are not doing a very good job, so i am in favor of this. however, would i like to see what the other commissioners have to say. and i might be inclined to request a continuance because there was one thing that came up and it was regarding the out reach but also the point was made many times that projects, the starbucks was not going into other neighborhoods.
if i could ask mr. phil burnet a question? >> i know that we had a conversation yesterday. and i had suggested that we look into places like sand bruno avenue and geneva and maybe the sunset, which we had a bad fight there a few years ago so that might be tougher and places like that and third street and do you think that is a possibility in the near future. >> we are opened in different areas of san francisco. >> we go up into the south bay and many areas that we go in from under served areas to lower income areas and so we are more than interested at looking at that. >> the second thing that i would ask is know that you had public out reach meetings and the staff said that they were adequate. and there is criticism that the public did not have at least organized public groups. i am sure that individual people could ask you questions. but you did not provide a forum where they could speak at and a. iscorrect?
>> we set up table and they were able to come and speak to the heads of the departments and ask the questions about the site and what we were doing in the process, yeah. we did reach out afterwards to the dtna and we did make the statement about that and offered to go back to their meetings and speak in their meetings and offer any questions for open and we did offer that up and we were rejected. >> yeah, it certainly, i have been to a number of community meetings, out around and the snows town and lake pmerced area and it is like you described where they are there and they give a presentation and they are a table and you can come and they don't necessarily have a forum where they provide time for groups to come up and lobby, against, a project. i mean, sort of, individual, >> right. >> participation which i am in favor of. i would ask if you are amenable if there is a continuance to having a meeting and allowing the neighborhood groups to come up and air out their concerns.
>> you willing to do that. >> let's see what the commissioners have to say, if those are the two areas if there are continuance that i would like to see to work on by the time it came back. >> thank you, all for coming and testifying. i have been on the commission for 9 months. and this is by star the most public input in e-mails that i anwhen i tell people that,ct. they say well san franciscoans are crazy. you know, i think that people are passionate about their neighborhood and their commercial corridor and want to say in how they are developed and i think that is why this cu process was put in place and it was nut put in place by the voters to put in a higher bar for retail. because they tend to impact. and i think that there are good things about this project and i think that the design is good and well thought out and i think that starbucks is a good
company and they go into spaces that others will go go into. and you can walk into this space which was vacant for many years and starbucks acts activated that and it is a much better environment. and now they do well in that community. the 18th street is crowded and i have seen the overflow traffic in there and so it is safeway. but i agree with that speaker, who said that it is not really about the starbucks, per se, or that building and kind of renovating that building, it is about kind of the broader feel of the commercial corridor and making sure that stays diverse and unique. i mean when i moved to the city, because i like that the neighborhoods are diverse and they are unique. and i travel around the neighborhood and you can look at some of the newer neighborhoods like king street which i don't tend to go to often where there are not controls and it is kind of,
there are not too many and it does not str that kind of unique san francisco flavor and i think that in this case we have to respect what we are hearing from the community and certainly there are people that are supporting it and i think that the comments that we have received are running two to one against and i also think that we have to look at the fact that there are two starbucks already in walking distance in the neighborhood in that there is a good deal of formula retail, especially on this stretch of upper market street. and you know, we are looking at a change in the neighborhood where there is going to be a lot more retail coming on-line in retail and developers, and the retail projects tend to look to formula retail because they are credit clients and they are trying to get, credit worthy tenants in. and so, you know, for those reasons, i am against the proposal and will vote no. >> commissioner?
>> thank you. >> i think that it is important to support the staff or the new commission's policy that we voted on. i think that it is a very precise policy and i think that instead of just asking for a formula retail ban across the board it looks specifically at concentration and it is something is that we ask to give us the tools around. even if the policy were not in place, we still have the five criteria to which we looked at formula retail. included concentration and whether or not the goods were available in the neighborhood already and i think that those two points, specifically for me on this project is that there are five on formula retail establishments within the 300 feet. and that, coffee, or the tea or whatever snacks are available at whatever locations and so it does not rise to the level of necessary, or desirable for me. >> commissioners? i am going to follow on ose comments if that isright.
>> my thoughts are very much along the two fellow commissioners, who have just commented. it is not a starbucks issue, this particular block it could be toys r us, but what is unique about san francisco and i think that what we love about san francisco is every district is different. every area is different. every block is different. and in this particular case, i really look at that particular block and we just approved this policy, not very long ago with a radius, this happened to follow a 21 percent, i feel obligated to back up that policy and support it, that does not mean that very soon we might come back and change that policy and that number, but for the time being, that is what is there. so i am not supportive of this particular project. however i do want to publicly say that i am supportive of the starbucks, i think that they are a good, corporate citizen. and i think as commissioner hillis said in certain location and blocks and certain areas
they bring vitalization and some of the comments in support speak to that and i agree with that. and i have had success with them as well personally. as a customer but also in business, and in the right place in the right spot, they are good. i don't think that this particular in this right block and this right address it is good. and i appreciate the comments, in thinking about, you know, as mentioning if you think about san francisco, believe it or not, in a strange way i think that this is a forward thought for san francisco and why i am not voting to support it. >> commissioner sugaya? >> thank you, i have a bunch of disjointed comments but i generally agree with the other commissioners with respect to accepting the staff recommendation on this particular project. firstly, i think that with respect to the policy, i think that we need to up hold the policy. if other commissioners are not in favor of the policy, they can get it changed at a later date, this is for the the forum to be talking about changing
the policy itself. in terms of people who came and spoke, i really appreciate the amount of public participation that we have received. i don't like my e-mail getting jammed up, but that is life. and one other commissioners say that it was running two to one against it or something. but, as much as we would like to hear from people, i think that you should not think of our decision as being based on some kind of popularity contest. it isn't the fact that the, you know, the comments were running two to one against or for or five to one against, or whatever. i think that the commission takes everything into consideration listens to the arguments, listens to the staff and then tries to make an independent decision. so, i am reminded that i did speak to my ex-wife about this.
we had dinner the other night. and she said, you know, she is newly married and her husband was living in a different small community in the valley and on a temporary assignment. and she would go and visit him and said, you know, when you are out there, and you want to, a cup of coffee, then you look around and you know generally we found that starbucks has, you know, that quality that we can expect. she didn't say whether it was good or bad. but something that you could expect. and you know they would go there. but she said, you know? when you are back in san francisco, we never go to the chains. and she said because it is different here. there is so many other choices, you know, independent businesses, and that is the kind of thing that we like to support. and so when we are back in the city, we tend to go to independence or cafe and have coffee there or something.
so, i am going to listen to her this time, too. and not that i didn't before. but she always gave good advice and i am going to follow that. i am going to make a motion to accept the staff disapproval recommendation. >> second. >> commissioner mar? >> i think that this has been an extremely high level of conversation, both the people who supported it and listened to those reasons and equally those that laid out the arguments against it, that includes the comments made by commissioner antonini, although i disagree with him. he sat up a discussion, which i find quite interesting. for the record, starbucks did not invent the coffee house that was invented at the turn of the century in vienna and that is a whole other thing. what starbucks picked up on and that is why in the early days, and i want to say one more sentence about that, i really
admired the ability of reintroducing it in places where it was not happening. so when the commissioner sugaya talks about his previous relationship and his previous partner and going to the valley or going into the redevelopment areas in areas where you find a starbucks, you do see the transformation of value to the store on its own has. however, in mature neighborhoods, fully developed have their own character, their own stability, and their own vitality and their own expression, to have a star buck to have two, and come with a third one, and sorry that i find it preytory and i find it inappropriate and in a way, undermining the corporate mission that you were describing being so notion and well intentioned. i have to say it because i do believe that as you are raising opposition to some of the aspect of what you are doing which are good, i think that
you should seek out those locations where indeed, you can contribute to remending the urban fabric and encourage neighborhood vanity. but when you start to tamper, or compete with the dna of san francisco, that being independent retail, i just basically have to draw a line. so i appreciate everybody's comment here. voicing their conditional support, or their unconditional denial of this application. and as supported the up holding of the disapproval called to questions. >> commissioner antonini? >> i will not be supporting the motion for the reasons that i stated. and i think that our best streets are the streets with blends like fillmore, and 24th street and union, and chest nut and a lot of streets around the city that have plenty of starbucks and other formula retail and plenty of npts that
do well and you have a choice and that is how we should choose. we should choose by our feet and our dollars. if youdon't like something, then don't shop there. don't stop this protectionism. that appears to be what is the rest of the commission wants to do. it was a mistake for me to vote for the poll policy. i was told that you will still have the discretion and many of the commissioners are saying well that is what the staff has told us and we are obliged. and you are not, you are doing it because you believe in what has been presented by the opponents not because you have to follow what staff has said. that is too bad, but that is what we dealing with today. hopefully there will be someone that comes and rehab taits that corner and does it the right way, otherwise it will continue to be blieted. >> commissioner moore?
>> supporting a policy is a voluntary and non-specific action and i felt that the policy was very thoughtfully developed. i thought that it was really way, it was a timely thing to suggest. and to support it is indeed voluntary and the obligation to support it and it would have pointed it in a different direction and it would have been indeed, a much more open opportunity for us to decide differently than what we are doing. we are not conspiring, the staff is not telling us what to do, but i do think that the discussion clearly reflects from the presentation by the neighbors and the merchant ss right on spot relative to what the actual situation is. i believe that the sameness factor of having too many starbucks in less than 300 feet from each other is a numbing
factor and it will detract from a transit and a walking oriented community, as we barely walk, with the one block to find another starbucks. and starbucks would indeed reinvent itself around the idea of being a destination it would not many as many locations as it currently do. it was the original mission and it was the one place to go to, i did redevelopment work in a very difficult part of los angeles a few years ago. and when i came to needing a starbucks i was using my, you know what to find one. so we drove there, there were no other ways to get there and at that time, starbucks was really a great place to find. and i think that is particular the kind of image that i support that is not in this particular neighborhood. >> commissioner sugaya >> yes, i can that in terms of the starbucks, it is being, the other aspect of it in the form law retail, as expect of it, is
that we are trying to kind of balance the amount of formula retail, no matter whether it is starbucks or pete's or chase bank or citibank or bank of america, from whatever taking over the market street corridor in this neighborhood. and that was the intent of the policy that we adopted earlier this year. and i think it would apply to any other formula retail that was coming in to this location also. it does not have to be starbucks. it could be chase bank. now i think that there is already a chase bank, one that maybe 100 feet from there and i can't remember the location. it could be any other formula retail and staff would have to make an analysis and we would hear from opponent and proponents about that particular formula retail as well. and so i think that in some ways we are looking at it a little bit more broadly than the particular formula retail which happens to be the
applicant in this case. and as far as other neighborhood commercial areas, that commissioner antonini mentioned, the fillmore is not inundated because of the conditional use process that we have to go through there also and it is not the case that we have denied formula retail all over the city, we have fillmore, we have done at least two form law retails. one associated with brooks brothers, i believe it is called black fleece or something. and then there was another one. ralph lauren outlet or whatever it is called, there is another one. that is not the case that the commission is anti-formula retail per se. >> commissioner antonini. i wanted to make a motion to continue it and i will tell you why. i would like to continue for 90
days, to allow project sponsor to meet with neighborhood groups, to see if they could work something out perhaps it might involve a sighting different from this site. you know there might be some other facility that would go in this site and you know, that is what everybody has been saying is that they want to meet and also give the project sponsor the ability to develop some locations in the parts of the city that i talked about that would cause out reach to under serve neighborhoods for starbucks and those are the two things that we hope to gain in the three months of this continuance. >> not hearing a second, commissioner, antonini. do you want to call the question. >> please. >> on the motion to disapprove, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner hillis. >> yes. >> commissioner moore. >> yes. >> sugaya. >> aye. >> wu in >> aye. >> fong? >> aye. >> that motion passes 5-1 with
commissioner antonini against. commissioners, do you want to call the next item. >> yes. >> could we take a quick break? >> we will take a little five-minute break, thank y [break] >> speaking before the commission, please do state your name for the record. >> commissioners, we left off on item 16, case number 2013.0158 c. question for the conditional use authorization. >> good evening, members of the planning commission, sharon young, the item is a request for a conditional use for extended hours of operation of a restaurant doing business as
barrel state. the restaurant will have a capacity to of 149 persons, currently the permitted hours of operation of the restaurant use is are 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. the proposal is to extend the permitted hours of the operation to 2:00 a.m.. >> the use will provide a limited amount of beer, brewing on the premises with an alcohol type of 75, the proposal will provide the commercial space and no ex-expansion of the building envelope. today the department has received e-mails asking for information and indicated that his support of the proposed projects and the department has received also two letters of opposition to the project because of concerns that the extended hours will cause an issue for the neighborhood residents. >> they have submitted 29 letters in out
reach meetings and engaged in efforts in which they will scribe in their presentation. and also received a letter of the north of the panhandle neighborhood association that requested the planning commission approve the proposed project with the following conditions, the conditional use is not attached to the property itself, but the brew house and the sponsors of the application, it is reviewed for feedback and comments and complaints related to the extended hours. the planning department staff is recommending that the proposed project be approved with conditions as indicated in the draft motion under exhibit a, that it is permitted hours between 6:00 a.m. and 2 a.m.. and this concludes the presentation and also available to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> project sponsor?
>> >> hi, good evening, good evening, planning commissioners, i'm ivan and i am the sponsor of the project of the barrel head brew house which is to be a brew pub a restaurant and brewery located inside of the 1785 fulton street location. it is our goal to open up and to serve up scale rustic food served with beer that is made on site as well. with a dedication to sustain able and local foods. i am a long term resident of this neighborhood, myself. with my family as well. and we have some pictures and other points of the presentation that amy who is
our project liaison with the neighborhood, and the project coordinator which we will talk more about. thank you. >> good evening, planning commissioners, my name is amy ellis and i am the community out reach liaison and i wanted to speak about how we will be a family friendly establishment. 700 block of fulton street has been blieted for many years and there are multiple vacancies on that block and we feel that right now is the perfect time to open a business such as ours and it will be an anchor business for the community and the block and as he mentioned we will super a local focus and all of the individuals involved are part of the neighborhood. the vacantcy has been ongoing for 9 years, so there is absolutely a need to have a business go in there and be a success. we really feel that there is a lack of establishmensuch hours fulton street and in
that neighborhood, that are opened to serve food later in the evening. we feel strongly that we need the extended hours of operation in order to be successful during our first year as you already know, many restaurants do not survive the first year and we would like for our business to be a success. we have conducted out reach in the community, for over a year and a half, we really feel there is a ground swell of neighborhood support as you will see evidenced in the 29 letters of support that were submitted by folks of all ages from properties surrounding where we will be going. we really feel that it is a necessary and desirable improvement for the neighborhood. as mrs. young has indicated in her report as well. i would like to take a moment to speak about the safety measure and how we will insure that there were no not disturbances to the neighborhood. all staff manage and hers owners